News Web Sites, at least good ones, generally allow for comments from readers. If false or biased opinions are put forward in a post the comments will generally point this out.
This isn't a perfect system(the people who are most likely to read a news web site are those who will most likely agree!), it is better than just taking a newspapers word for it.
I understand the sentiment and where your coming from. Your essential argument is like asking the question: Would you rather make $30,000 and have other people make $15,000, or make $60,000 and have other people make $100,000?
However, that is not the situation as it is presented. In a communist community people would have approximately the same wealth. A rephrasing of the question would be more like this: Would you rather make $30,000 and have other people make $15,000, or make $60,000 and have other people make $60,000?
Presented in this context I would suggest that people would prefer the latter. It is not as important to be in the top social class if there is no one above you. In fact, when there is less disparity between social classes, people are generally happier.
Some people suggest that this lack of disparity between classes is what leads to longer life expectancies in some countries. A strong proponent of this theory is Micheal Marmot, and hes written a book about it, "How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity."
For me to be wealthy in a communist country than everyone would be wealthy.
Since everyone is wealthy this would be a nice place to live. So I would enjoy living there.
MementoMori, I am not seeing your problem.
What if I believe in a god that is around only because of the collective power of humans, and has nothing to do with the creation of humans. This is just an example of a possible god that does not contradict with believing in evolution.
But lets say that we only want to believe in gods that created humans. Just because you don't see how the process has an intention towards humans doesn't mean that a hypothetical super god won't. Maybe humans will be the end result of any evolutionary process, or at least in an evolutionary system defined by a god.
What most major religions assert has nothing to do with this question. Maybe had you phrased the question "Is there a conflict within most major religions in believing in both evolution and a personal god?" than this argument could have worked. But alas, you did not. And since what one believes in as personal god has nothing to do with what most major religions assert, your argument is false.
Your making two big assumption in your argument. You are assuming that the only way to a personal god is through your preconceived notion of what religion is. You make the argument that the "founding beliefs in religion is..." While this may be true in your religion, or a great many religions, it is not true for all religions.
Your second assumption is that the only way to a personal god is through a religion. However, it is possible it find a personal god through ones own beliefs, whether or not others around them believe it.
Since one can find a personal god anyway they choose, and any religion can exist, it is obvious that the belief in a personal god, and the belief in evolution do not conflict with each other.
Wow, stupid question. This is obviously false.
Believing in a personal god does not require belief in anything else. It only requires the belief in a personal god.
Therefore, it does not require the belief that evolution is not true.
